Compare the operating models
A fictional repeat haircut customer wants Ada. A first-time passport-photo customer accepts either trained staff. Name-first suits the first offer; time-first can suit the second if staff are genuinely interchangeable under the supplied service scope.
| Business requirement | Customer chooses provider | Time-first assignment |
|---|---|---|
| Repeat haircut | Ada is the requested promise | Could miss customer preference |
| Standard photo | Extra choice without supplied benefit | Assign eligible free staff |
| Confirmation detail | Named provider | Assigned provider and change policy |
Work through the chosen model
Store provider preference separately from actual assignment. A named service cannot silently become any-staff. For time-first services, list eligible staff and the supplied allocation policy.
- Choose named staff or time
- Allocate under matching promise
- Confirm the actual assignment
Named choice supports continuity but narrows available times. Time-first improves flexibility only when the business can fulfil the same promise with any eligible member.
Ada’s customer sees only Ada’s offered times. The photo customer selects 14:00 and receives assignment Pat if eligible/free under the supplied policy.
When the other model fits
A photo customer explicitly requests Pat for a specialist service. Still auto-assign any staff?
Show the worked answer
No. Honour the supplied named-provider scope or show that it cannot be offered.